All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinian Paradox
⁜→ Sixties Fan, et al,

Israeli regime forces attacked the paramedics staff and the ambulance of the Red Crescent Society in Khirbet Al-Latwana in Yatta, southern Al-Khalil.

(COMMENT)
.
I don't quite get the implication that you make in saying "Israeli Regime Forces." Either you know what agency or activity attacked the vehicle, or you do not...

Similarly, conspicuously absent is the circumstances leading up to the incident. What is the purpose for this posting?
.

"These are the Children You Killed."

(COMMENT)
.
I look at this as just an emotional outburst.

​

◈ Guide to Appeal to Emotion Fallacy​

◈ Logical fallacies: Appeal to Emotion​

​

It is not uncommon for the Arab Palestinian to place their civilian population in harm's way in a purposeful move to create an event that will generate pity, fear, and the incitement to violence, or to attempt to generate the notion that the Israelis inflict such injury and death on purpose (intentionally targeting children).

Of course, anyone who studies these events will readily come to the conclusion that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are internally weaponizing the death of these children for propaganda purposes. They create the event by setting the conditions that the military response will generate these casualties.

We see this all the time. It is part and parcel the standing doctrine of the HoAP.

◈ The PFLP says it is a "human right" for Palestinians to kill Jews​

‎◈ “Those representing Palestine must be prepared to sacrifice blood” ‎ ‎– Fatah official​

◈ Fatah before flag march, urges martyrdom-death for Jerusalem​

◈ Hamas TV glorifies jihad, urges 'Death to Israel!'​

◈ PALESTINIAN ARAB OFFICIAL ADMITS “KILLING ISRAELIS IS NOT TERROR, IT’S LEGITIMATE”​

When we (individually) examine the actions of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), we have to question our understanding about the nature of morality. We question "our" understanding of our application and how it differs from the HoAP application. In the five perspectives cited (supra), which are valid expressions of morality and which are not?
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is not uncommon for the Arab Palestinian to place their civilian population in harm's way

Israel attacks Palestinians where they live. That is not placing your civilians in harms way.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I don't quite get the implication that you make in saying "Israeli Regime Forces." Either you know what agency or activity attacked the vehicle, or you do not...

Whether it is Tweedledee or Tweedledum doesn't matter.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinian Paradox
⁜→ Sixties Fan, et al,


(COMMENT)
.
I don't quite get the implication that you make in saying "Israeli Regime Forces." Either you know what agency or activity attacked the vehicle, or you do not...

Similarly, conspicuously absent is the circumstances leading up to the incident. What is the purpose for this posting?
.

(COMMENT)
.
I look at this as just an emotional outburst.

View attachment 564038
​

◈ Guide to Appeal to Emotion Fallacy​

​

◈ Logical fallacies: Appeal to Emotion​

It is not uncommon for the Arab Palestinian to place their civilian population in harm's way in a purposeful move to create an event that will generate pity, fear, and the incitement to violence, or to attempt to generate the notion that the Israelis inflict such injury and death on purpose (intentionally targeting children).

Of course, anyone who studies these events will readily come to the conclusion that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are internally weaponizing the death of these children for propaganda purposes. They create the event by setting the conditions that the military response will generate these casualties.

We see this all the time. It is part and parcel the standing doctrine of the HoAP.

◈ The PFLP says it is a "human right" for Palestinians to kill Jews​

‎◈ “Those representing Palestine must be prepared to sacrifice blood” ‎ ‎– Fatah official​

◈ Fatah before flag march, urges martyrdom-death for Jerusalem​

◈ Hamas TV glorifies jihad, urges 'Death to Israel!'​

◈ PALESTINIAN ARAB OFFICIAL ADMITS “KILLING ISRAELIS IS NOT TERROR, IT’S LEGITIMATE”​

When we (individually) examine the actions of the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), we have to question our understanding about the nature of morality. We question "our" understanding of our application and how it differs from the HoAP application. In the five perspectives cited (supra), which are valid expressions of morality and which are not?
.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your usual smear piece. Armed struggle against oppression is legal.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinian Paradox
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Israel attacks Palestinians where they live. That is not placing your civilians in harms way.

(REMEMBER)

​

(COMMENT)
.
When the Israeli counter or otherwise responds within a period of time comparatively close to the present to the attack initiated by the Arab Palestinians → where the ‘necessity of a response is an essential deterrent to suppress hostile activity, that becomes an action of "self-defense."

SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law •John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp549​

When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) launch an attack from from a position which is in close proximity to the civilian population that is "placing your civilians in harms way."
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinian Paradox
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

(REMEMBER)

View attachment 564205
View attachment 564202​

(COMMENT)
.
When the Israeli counter or otherwise responds within a period of time comparatively close to the present to the attack initiated by the Arab Palestinians → where the ‘necessity of a response is an essential deterrent to suppress hostile activity, that becomes an action of "self-defense."

SOURCE: Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law •John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker. -- 3rd ed. © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. pp549​

When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) launch an attack from from a position which is in close proximity to the civilian population that is "placing your civilians in harms way."
.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory

[In view of Israel`s assertions that its current attacks on the Gaza Strip are an exercise in legitimate self-defense, Jadaliyya re-posts an analysis of this claim by Co-Editor Noura Erakat initially published in 2012.] On the fourth day of Israel`s

www.jadaliyya.com

On the fourth day of Israel`s most recent onslaught against Gaza`s Palestinian population, President Barack Obama declared, “No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.” In an echo of Israeli officials, he sought to frame Israel`s aerial missile strikes against the 360-square kilometer Strip as the just use of armed force against a foreign country. Israel`s ability to frame its assault against territory it occupies as a right of self-defense turns international law on its head.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

“No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.”

Exactly! But the terrorist regime in Gaza will never pay for their war crimes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory

[In view of Israel`s assertions that its current attacks on the Gaza Strip are an exercise in legitimate self-defense, Jadaliyya re-posts an analysis of this claim by Co-Editor Noura Erakat initially published in 2012.] On the fourth day of Israel`s

www.jadaliyya.com

On the fourth day of Israel`s most recent onslaught against Gaza`s Palestinian population, President Barack Obama declared, “No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.” In an echo of Israeli officials, he sought to frame Israel`s aerial missile strikes against the 360-square kilometer Strip as the just use of armed force against a foreign country. Israel`s ability to frame its assault against territory it occupies as a right of self-defense turns international law on its head.

Palestinian war crimes are pretty funny.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinian war crimes are pretty funny.

Examples?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Examples?

Launching rockets from civilian areas toward civilian areas.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Launching rockets from civilian areas toward civilian areas.

Israel's version of close to civilian structures could be 200 yards or more.

The Palestinians do not fire rockets into Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
SUBTOPIC: The Palestinian promotion of discrimination, hostility, or violence.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Again, this is a case of Arab Palestinian "Misinformation" and a deliberate attempt to deceive the reader.

On the fourth day of Israel`s most recent onslaught against Gaza`s Palestinian population, President Barack Obama declared, “No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.” In an echo of Israeli officials, he sought to frame Israel`s aerial missile strikes against the 360-square kilometer Strip as the just use of armed force against a foreign country. Israel`s ability to frame its assault against territory it occupies as a right of self-defense turns international law on its head.

(COMMENT)
.
You have this backward.

The President was expressing the view that no country like Israel would tolerate the rocket bombardment originating from the Hostile Arab Palestinians without a military response → a retaliatory strike.

And again, this idea that "international law on its head" is deceptive. The Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) states otherwise. Article 68, Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). You cannot cite any "law" that counters the GCIV. → Arab Palestinians who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (ie - The Israelis), or damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offense committed.

Further, to suggest otherwise, as you did here and do quite frequently, is (as an act in itself) a violation of Article 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). It is prohibited to promote propaganda for war or to advocate or incite discrimination, hostility, or violence.

People like yourself do not advocate for peace, but attempt to justify the continuation of conflict.

Peace, the restoration of peace, and the maintenance of peace are the central theme of Customary and IHL.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Israel attacks Palestinians where they live. That is not placing your civilians in harms way.

Another of your frantic, unsupported outbursts.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And again, this idea that "international law on its head" is deceptive. The Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) states otherwise. Article 68, Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). You cannot cite any "law" that counters the GCIV.

Military occupation is a recognized status under international law and since 1967, the international community has designated the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as militarily occupied. As long as the occupation continues, Israel has the right to protect itself and its citizens from attacks by Palestinians who reside in the occupied territories. However, Israel also has a duty to maintain law and order, also known as “normal life,” within territory it occupies. This obligation includes not only ensuring but prioritizing the security and well-being of the occupied population. That responsibility and those duties are enumerated in Occupation Law.
Occupation Law is part of the laws of armed conflict; it contemplates military occupation as an outcome of war and enumerates the duties of an occupying power until the peace is restored and the occupation ends. To fulfill its duties, the occupying power is afforded the right to use police powers, or the force permissible for law enforcement purposes.

No, Israel Does Not Have the Right to Self-Defense In International Law Against Occupied Palestinian Territory

[In view of Israel`s assertions that its current attacks on the Gaza Strip are an exercise in legitimate self-defense, Jadaliyya re-posts an analysis of this claim by Co-Editor Noura Erakat initially published in 2012.] On the fourth day of Israel`s

www.jadaliyya.com

Police action not military action. Read article 68.